On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 07:10:21PM -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> Your original patch for -c=foo is now checked in.
Cool! You should also be able to uncomment the extra tests now.
..wayne..
__
POPT Library
On Mar 9, 2008, at 6:36 PM, Wayne Davison wrote:
On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 12:10:52PM -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote:
Running test test1 - 9.
Test "test1 -2 foo" failed with: "arg1: 0 arg2: rest: foo" != "arg1:
0 arg2: foo"
I can get that failure if the line I added does not replace the prior
assi
On Mar 9, 2008, at 6:22 PM, Wayne Davison wrote:
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 10:51:42AM -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] popt]$ /bin/echo --foo --bar
--bar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] popt]$ /bin/echo -- --foo --bar
--foo --bar
OK, Let's hope that your echo will not drop anything if the first
On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 12:10:52PM -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> Running test test1 - 9.
> Test "test1 -2 foo" failed with: "arg1: 0 arg2: rest: foo" != "arg1:
> 0 arg2: foo"
I can get that failure if the line I added does not replace the prior
assignment (which makes it affect the case where *o
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 10:51:42AM -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] popt]$ /bin/echo --foo --bar
> --bar
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] popt]$ /bin/echo -- --foo --bar
> --foo --bar
OK, Let's hope that your echo will not drop anything if the first arg
passed to it is a non-option (such as "args
On Mar 9, 2008, at 5:38 PM, Wayne Davison wrote:
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 10:51:42AM -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
Meanwhile, below is a rewrite of POPT_fprintf, essentially identical
to the "man vsnprintf" example. See what you think ...
Looks good. I did some tweaking based on this code. The
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 10:51:42AM -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> Meanwhile, below is a rewrite of POPT_fprintf, essentially identical
> to the "man vsnprintf" example. See what you think ...
Looks good. I did some tweaking based on this code. The attached patch
changes what you checked-in to CVS.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] popt]$ /bin/echo --foo --bar
> --bar
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] popt]$ /bin/echo -- --foo --bar
> --foo --bar
> Heh, I believe the answer starts to become clearer:
> The echo(1) from Fedora coreutils-6.10-4.fc9.i386 dares to be
different.
> The root cause is what I needed to underst
On Mar 9, 2008, at 10:51 AM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
while ((b = realloc(b, nb)) != NULL) {
va_start(ap, format);
rc = vsnprintf(b, nb, format, ap);
va_end(ap);
if (rc < -1 && (size_t)rc < nb)
This should have been
if (rc > -1 && (size_t)rc < nb)
On Mar 9, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Wayne Davison wrote:
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 12:42:37AM -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote:
/bin/echo on my system is unmodified from
Fedora 9 coreutils-6.10-4.fc9.i386
Interesting. So, what do you get with a manual run?
/bin/echo --foo --bar
/bin/echo -- --foo
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 12:42:37AM -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> /bin/echo on my system is unmodified from
> Fedora 9 coreutils-6.10-4.fc9.i386
Interesting. So, what do you get with a manual run?
/bin/echo --foo --bar
/bin/echo -- --foo --bar
I see all the option information output lit
On Mar 8, 2008, at 11:24 PM, Wayne Davison wrote:
On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 06:11:09PM -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote:
Hmmm, we appear to have different behavior wrto echo. Your
patch changes testit.sh to include an explicit "--", which (when
I last fixed testit.sh like 3 weeks ago) does not appear i
On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 06:11:09PM -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> Hmmm, we appear to have different behavior wrto echo. Your
> patch changes testit.sh to include an explicit "--", which (when
> I last fixed testit.sh like 3 weeks ago) does not appear in the
> output I am (and was) seeing.
I tried i
On Mar 8, 2008, at 12:56 PM, Wayne Davison wrote:
On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 12:10:52PM -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote:
Test "test1 -2 foo" failed with: "arg1: 0 arg2: rest: foo" != "arg1:
0 arg2: foo"
I'm not seeing that error with the CVS version. I do note that my
prior
patch to fix the longA
On Mar 8, 2008, at 12:56 PM, Wayne Davison wrote:
On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 12:10:52PM -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote:
Test "test1 -2 foo" failed with: "arg1: 0 arg2: rest: foo" != "arg1:
0 arg2: foo"
I'm not seeing that error with the CVS version. I do note that my
prior
patch to fix the longA
On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 12:10:52PM -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> Test "test1 -2 foo" failed with: "arg1: 0 arg2: rest: foo" != "arg1:
> 0 arg2: foo"
I'm not seeing that error with the CVS version. I do note that my prior
patch to fix the longArg pointer (e.g. "./test1 -2foo=bar") isn't there,
b
On Mar 8, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Wayne Davison wrote:
I think it would be nice to allow an equal to separate a short option
letter from its abutting argument. e.g. these commands using the
test1
executable would all work the same:
./test1 -2 foo
./test1 -2=foo
./test1 -2foo
./test1 --arg2
17 matches
Mail list logo
